Volunteer Interviews

People sometimes express surprise that I want to sit down and have a little chat with them before they're invited to participate in our volunteer training program. In addition to being a hospice requirement, it's also a good idea. Although most people mean well (I say "most," because in the past I'm told we had one person who thought it would be fine to get himself written into the patient's will and stormed out of class in a huff when told otherwise), some have misperceptions about what hospice is, others have grandiose ideas of their contribution, some are there more for their own attention than the patients and families and others need fine-tuning over what's acceptable and what's not in dealing with patients and families.

A lady in one of our training classes piped up to share with the group that after her mother's death, she attended a bereavement group and decided it wasn't for her because the other participants had "needs" that she didn't. She went on to say that a member of the group had apparently had a rather domineering spouse and she had wanted to tell her that she was far better off without him and should be glad he was dead.

Yes, well clearly she has some extensive training yet.

One of the things we're taught is that you'll never change family dynamics and shouldn't try. You can't know a family's years and years of history and/or the triggers that make individuals crazy. Additionally, people choose to stay in situations for any number of reasons and to assume that if the relationship was troubled they shouldn't bother to mourn, is thoughtless at best.

Pre-class interviews reveal interesting things if the questions are crafted to elicit opinions. For instance, there was the one prospective volunteer who, when asked how she might respond if a patient's spouse offered her one of his wife's diamond rings as thanks, thought about it a good long while and finally said that she'd say "no," but if he insisted, she wouldn't want to insult him. - Uh, right.

Evey now and then, I'll end up with a pet therapist who's unhappy because the dog isn't getting enough attention. Once again, the focus is off. If the volunteer is there for people to fawn over the dog, he's there for the wrong reason. Another example of why it's a good idea to try to ascertain someone's interest in volunteering.

We get a few indignant people who feel that if they're willing to volunteer, we should be grateful for their time and that asking them to come in for an interview is way too much. Well, now they know the reason. I find it a revealing and indispensible process.

Pet Therapy

I'm not sure why it took me almost two years to realize that some of our pet therapists had a limited view of why they were there, but now I'm determined to rectify the problem. It's twofold, I think: (1) Since pet therapists in past training groups were not given a focus, they arrived at the conclusion that they were strictly there for people to pet the dog - not an unreasonable conclusion, I might add, because they were given all the statistics about lowered blood pressure, lowered heart and respiratory rates and better sleep patterns in patients following a pet visit. Since the focus was put on the pet, the volunteer's involvement in the process became superfluous. He or she saw himself as accompanying the dog. (2) I don't believe it's conscious, but even with all the training about active listening and good communication skills, it's still daunting to walk into a stranger's room and start up a conversation with patients and families, any of whom might be depressed, or angry, or distraught, or just plain uninterested. It's easy to arrive at the conclusion that standing in a doorway for a few minutes while everyone oohs and aahs over the cute puppy and dutifully pats him on the head constitutes a successful visit. Again, not unreasonable. The dog is happy, the patient and family are smiling and everyone seems more relaxed.

However, I thing the difference in the focus - from accompanying the dog, to using the dog as the entree into the room - is potentially huge. In the latter scenario, the volunteer takes over once the interest in the dog gets him into the room. Then if the patient wants to reminisce about the dog he took on a fishing trip to Montana twenty years ago, the volunteer should be prepared to sit down, get comfortable and use those active listening skills he learned in the volunteer training classes. The conversation doesn't need to include the disease process in order to be doing something positive for everyone in the room. Maybe the half hour spent reminiscing about a happy memory is enough to take the focus off the elephant in the room so everyone can relax a bit. Now that, it seems to me, is a much more satisfying and meaningful visit, fitting the description "therapy" more accurately